Two States? That Ship Has Sailed

When I was 17, I was an idealist. I believed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be resolved with fairness, mutual respect, and a simple division of land. I thought that if we all just recognized each other’s humanity, peace would naturally follow.

But growing up forces you to confront complexity—especially in the Middle East.

Let me ask you something: Why would someone emigrate to a peaceful country like France, Germany, or the UK, build a life there, and then carry out a terrorist attack?

It’s an uncomfortable question, but it reveals something deeper. These acts aren’t just about grievance or injustice. They reflect a broader ideological struggle—particularly within radical Islam—that is fundamentally incompatible with pluralism, secularism, or modernity. These ideologies don’t merely seek a place in reality; they seek to replace it entirely.

Some may argue that Zionism, too, was a project designed to “alter reality” in Palestine. And in a sense, yes—it aimed to build a future for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland. But there’s a critical difference: Zionism did not come to erase what existed. It came to create, not to conquer.

The violence that erupted in the 1920s was not initiated by Zionists. It was a reaction to repeated Arab rejectionism—the refusal of much of the Arab leadership at the time to consider coexistence. The Bloudan Conference of 1937 exemplified this rejectionism, as Arab leaders gathered with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem to pledge unwavering hostility toward the Jewish presence in the land.

Armed Jewish groups were not part of the original Zionist vision. They emerged out of necessity, in response to violent attacks on Jewish communities—including Jews who had lived in the region for centuries. And so, a tragic cycle of violence began.

The Arab national project in Palestine—one that could have evolved alongside Zionism—never materialized. Not because it lacked merit, but because it lacked coherent leadership and a willingness to compromise. The rejection of Zionism became more central than the pursuit of a viable Palestinian state.

What I’ve come to understand is this: not all ideologies are equal. Some build; others destroy. Some coexist; others demand surrender.

Understanding this distinction is crucial if we want to move toward peace without clinging to illusions. We can’t afford to keep recycling the same failed formulas. The two-state solution, in particular, has become a kind of sacred mantra—repeated reflexively, even as its feasibility crumbles.

It’s time to ask a harder question: Do we care more about giving Palestinians what they need to build a sustainable future, or about giving them what they want—even when that want is destructive to themselves, their neighbors, and the region as a whole?

The Problem with the Two-State Model

I don’t claim to have a magical or simple solution. No one does. But we cannot move forward unless we are honest about foundational truths.

And the first is this: splitting Israel into two states will not bring peace. It will likely deepen the conflict.

Anyone paying close attention to dominant voices in Palestinian political culture knows that the issue has never truly been about 1967 borders. It has always been about rejecting Jewish sovereignty in any part of the land. That’s why every serious territorial offer—no matter how generous—was met with rejection, or worse, with violence.

There are Arabs who proudly identify as Israelis. But there are also many who reject Israel’s right to exist altogether. They deserve dignity like anyone else—but dignity does not mean indulging fantasies that perpetuate suffering, violence, and political paralysis.

At some point, the international community—and especially the Arab world—must stop legitimizing the notion that the destruction of Israel is a valid political goal.

A Regional Rethinking

So what’s the alternative?

Let’s zoom out. If the current borders—Israel proper, Gaza, and the West Bank—have become incubators of radicalism and hopelessness, maybe it’s time to re-examine how these entities came to be.

The British Mandate of Palestine once included what is now Jordan—a country created to serve as a Hashemite kingdom. That political arrangement raised little controversy, despite the ruling family arriving from the Arabian Peninsula. No one tells them to “go back to Saudi Arabia” the way Jews are told to “go back to Poland.”

We don’t need history undone—we need it reckoned with.

Perhaps it’s time for the Arab world, in partnership with Israel, to begin holding Palestinian leadership accountable—not just for corruption and chronic failure, but for refusing to abandon terror as a political strategy. It’s also time to hold neighboring Arab states accountable for keeping Palestinians in a permanent state of limbo, using them as pawns instead of integrating them into society.

A Sketch of a New Direction

What might a more constructive approach look like?

• Integration for those who stay: Anyone who wishes to remain in Israel must be willing to fully integrate as citizens under Israeli law—with clean criminal records and a genuine commitment to peaceful coexistence. Committing acts of terror should result in deportation.
• Voluntary relocation options: Those who reject Israeli sovereignty could be offered the choice to relocate—voluntarily—to Arab countries, particularly Jordan, which is historically and geographically the most logical destination, or to Western countries willing to receive a number of Palestinian families.
• Deradicalization and support: This would require serious international funding and a robust deradicalization program aimed at building a new generation of leaders—educated, innovative, and peace-oriented. Stipends should be conditional on participation in and commitment to long-term deradicalization.
• Economic and cultural partnership: Over time, this new generation could become partners in regional development—economically, culturally, and politically. Some might one day seek to return—to visit, to work—through lawful and regulated channels, like any immigrant.
• Justice for Jewish refugees: At the same time, justice must be pursued for the hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from Arab countries. Their stories, dignity, and stolen property matter. Their experience, too, must be acknowledged and restored.

This Isn’t a Peace Plan

This isn’t a detailed peace plan—it’s a call to shift the conversation.

From outdated slogans to hard truths.

From unworkable fantasies to long-term regional vision.

From indulging illusions to building something real.

Because real peace isn’t built on pretending. It’s built on honesty, responsibility, and the courage to imagine a future that doesn’t repeat the failures of the past.